The court upheld the order for re-examination of critical evidence, emphasizing timely proceedings in pending criminal cases.

O R D E R Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner, who is the sole accused in SC. No.898/2022 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kunnamkulam arising out of Crime No.3477/2020 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS , challenging Annexure A6 order passed by the learned Special Judge, permitting the prosecution to examine the mobile phones of the accused and his mother at State Forensic Science Laboratory.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier, the same mobile phones were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory on 6.11.2020 and report dated 30.11.2024 was received stating that “the questioned mobile phones could not be power on and the same is not detected in any of the analysis hardware or software available in the laboratory and hence data could not be retrieved from the questioned mobile phones.” Thereafter, the learned Prosecutor filed Annexure-A4 application for sending the mobile phones to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, which was allowed by the learned Special Judge as per Exhibit A6 order.

3. The main grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is now pending for the last five years and if the mobile phones are again sent for examination, it will further protract the trial and also that examination is unlikely to yield any result. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside Annexure A6 order.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, though the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory reported that they could not retrieve the data, there is nothing wrong in attempting to retrieve the same by sending the mobile phones to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. He suggested that the grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be addressed by directing the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, to expedite the examination and to file the report in a time bound manner.

5. In the above circumstances, the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, is suo motu impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent in this case.

6. In Annexure-A4 application, it is specifically stated that the mobile phones sought to be examined contained detailes of the chat between the accused and the deceased and if it is retrieved, the same will be a crucial evidence in the case. It is also stated that there was some telephonic conversation between the accused and the deceased through the mobile phone of his mother. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory could not retrieve the above details and as such it is only just and proper to send it to the State Forensic Science Laboratory to see that whether they could retrieve the data called for by the prosecution.

7. In the above circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in Annexure A6 order. However, considering the fact that this case is pending for the last five years, there will be a direction to the additional 3^rd respondent to complete the examination of the mobile phones involved in this case and to file a report expeditiously, and if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the additional

3^rd respondent.